CRJ-900 flight crew reported landing gear disagree indication resulted in expeditious handling to a safe landing.
Synopsis
CRJ-900 flight crew reported landing gear disagree indication resulted in expeditious handling to a safe landing.
Narrative
After taking off from ZZZ on XXL we received a 'gear disagree' warning message due to the nose gear not retracting in the full up position. We advised ATC and leveled off at 9;000 feet and 200 knots and ATC [Requested Priority Handling] for us. We then ran the QRH and contacted dispatch. We extended the gear and it locked in the down position. The Captain talked to Dispatch while I flew the aircraft and talked to ATC. We discussed continuing to ZZZ1; or diverting to ZZZ2 or ZZZ. After assessing the situation with Dispatch we determined that the best course of action was to return to ZZZ due to our fuel level. We set up for runway XXL and completed all appropriate checklists. We landed normally and upon inspection from maintenance; they were unable to find the cause of the issue.Cause: There was a malfunction with the nose gear that did not allow it to fully retract in the up and locked position. The gear pin was not in and maintenance advised us that there seemed to be nothing that was wrong with the gear upon initial inspection.
Second reporter narrative
Departing from ZZZ on Aircraft X enroute to ZZZ1; we received a GEAR DISAGREE warning message. I was pilot monitoring and the first officer (Person B) was pilot flying. On initial departure I called for positive rate and the FO called for gear up; speed mode and heading mode. As the gear retracted; the two mains indicated up while the nose gear indicated yellow and then red followed by a subsequent GEAR DISAGREE warning message. We were handed off to ZZZ departure control on the climb; I advised that we needed to run a checklist and requested vectors to stay in the vicinity of the airport. I began running the QRH procedure and gave the FO radio control. We completed the QRH procedure and were able to get the nose gear down and indicating down; three green. At this point; I sent a message to dispatch via ACARS to advise them of the situation. I then called dispatch on radio #2 via ARNIC to discuss further action. The QRH calls to land at the nearest suitable airport. With the aircraft in stable; non-critical flight condition we coordinated with dispatch and came to the conclusion that our best options would be to divert to ZZZ2 or air return to ZZZ. Via ARNIC; we came to an agreement that returning to ZZZ would be our best option. With the QRH ran and decision to return to ZZZ; I called the flight attendants and briefed them on the situation. After briefing the flight attendants; I made a PA announcement to the passengers advising them of the situation and air return to ZZZ . We continued to run our appropriate checklists before advising ZZZ approach that we were ready to come back in to land. At some point during getting the aircraft ready for arrival; ATC advised they would be [Requesting Priority Handling] on our behalf and that emergency personnel would be standing by. We advised them of the 72 souls on board and approximately two hours of fuel remaining. At this point; we advised ATC we were ready to continue inbound for landing.We landed and taxied off the runway and stopped the aircraft. ARFF (Airport Rescue and Firefighting) was standing by and we communicated through ground frequency that we would not need any special handling and all indications on our end were good. After the all clear; we taxied back to the gate with ARFF following. We parked at the gate with no further incident. Maintenance control met us at the gate and were unable to determine what would have caused this to occur. We plane swapped to a different tail and continued to ZZZ1 getting the passengers to their destination safe.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.